Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the recency cap (not full history) and the delivery mechanism (inline or live-hash-guarded resource chunks), which is useful, but ordering and row contents are left implicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the phrasing is convoluted and run-on ('which you must be able to call', 'complete live-hash-guarded resource chunks'), making it denser than needed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and annotations are rich, so return values and safety are covered externally. The description adds the recency limitation and delivery mode, leaving only minor gaps like sort order of returned rows.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67% and the connection param already documents id/name/team/disabled semantics. The description largely restates those rules and repeats the limit default/max that the schema already declares, adding little new meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the resource precisely (recent connection-call metadata, every caller's rows for one connection) and distinguishes the scope from a full historical audit. The verb is somewhat implicit (carried by the title 'Show') but an agent can still tell what it retrieves.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear conditions for the identifier (id alone, including a disabled connection, or name with optional team) but only implies usage scope via 'recent... not a full historical audit.' It never names the alternative (e.g., connection_audit_purge or a full-audit sibling) or when-not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.